Talk:Charles Lindbergh
A shame this rather solid article about an interesting historical figure all hinges on one silly throwaway line in such a stupid story. Or, put the other way, yay us for getting such a solid article about an interesting historical figure out of one silly throwaway line in a stupid story. However you like it. Turtle Fan 06:32, February 10, 2010 (UTC) :I knew there was another reference to Lindbergh, but I'd forgotten until playing around in OJ Simpson. Actually, I think I let it go because I was finding some of the articles coming out the story morbid enough (Simpson, Charles Manson, the various deceased Kennedys), it felt inappropriate to include the deceased child for some reason. TR 01:05, April 11, 2010 (UTC) ::Those are some morbid-ass articles. Given the opportunity to witness a historical event, all people would want to watch is gruesome crimes and deaths, plus famous sex scenes? No one has the slightest interest in Washington crossing the Delaware, or the fall of Troy? Investigate the historical basis, if any, of King Arthur, perhaps? But the murder of the Lindbergh baby is beyond the pale even by the standards of this story. ::Anyway, I all of a sudden seem to remember Lindbergh being referenced in DoI. Of course, I'm no DoI expert, so it's up to you or ML4E or maybe Mr Nelg to verify. Turtle Fan 06:20, May 1, 2010 (UTC) :::I vaguely recall in the first book that Joe Crosetti was chastised by a flight instructor for not paying attention and didn't he want to be another Lindbergh? Crosetti was indignant saying in effect that he didn't care for the Nazi sympathizer. The instructor then replied, fine be another Jimmy Doolittle which Crosetti liked better. This would have been just after Doolittle's B-25 raid on Hawaii but before the Japanese retaliatory raid on San Francisco. As I think about it, Crosetti was distracted by fantasies about being part of Doolittle's raid. ML4E 01:49, May 2, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yes, that was it, being the next Lindbergh. And Doolittle's star had eclipsed Lindy's. ::::Hardly seems worth adding a section, does it? "Joe Crosetti did not admire Charles Lindbergh." I suppose that with the article existing, it becomes a little more forgivable. Turtle Fan 02:23, May 2, 2010 (UTC) Duke of Philadelphia in T2G In The Two Georges there is a reference to the theft of the painting being the most outrageous crime since the kidnapping of the Duke of Philadelphia's daughter. Kevin Lauderdale's annotaions, Page 127 suggests its the Lindbergh kidnapping. Think should be added? ML4E (talk) 17:40, March 19, 2013 (UTC) :The line with a little more context, is Nathan Hairston exclaiming: "To think of this sleepy, godforsaken place involved in what has to be the most outrageous crime since the Duke of Philadelphia’s daughter was kidnapped fifty years ago...". On the one hand, given HT's sense of humor, it's a safe bet this is a shoutout to the Lindbergh case--both events were big deals at the time, and have stayed in the popular imagination decades later. On the other hand, what little we know about the Duke of Philadelphia thing is still quite different from the Lindbergh event, (and winds up being rather generic when one considers the majority of kidnappings). In T2G, it was a daughter, presumably in Philadelphia, in the 1940s (50 years prior to 1995). We aren't sure how old the victim was or what the outcome was. In Lindbergh, it was a very young son (who was murdered), taken from his NJ home, in the 1930s. ::I raised it because when I first read T2G I thought it referenced Lindbergh and then when TR posted the Lauderdale annotations, he confirmed it with his note. Flipping through recent updates, I recalled the matter. ML4E (talk) 20:17, March 20, 2013 (UTC) :I don't know if it's worth adding to the Lindbergh given how tenuous the connection really. I suppose if we had an annotations page for T2G of our own, that would be the place for it. TR (talk) 19:15, March 19, 2013 (UTC) ::Agreed. It's way too little to justify inclusion. The Booker T. Washington shout-out was pretty obvious, and the Henry Kissinger thing left clues that were too specific to ignore (though if I reread HB today, a character referred to only as "the Doctor" would make me think of something else entirely, especially in a book that's already got Star Trek shout-outs). Margaret Thatcher is a bit of a stretch but still justifiable. But this "Duke of Philadelphia" really is a bridge too far. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:18, March 20, 2013 (UTC) :::I though it a bit of a stretch too, but wanted your opinion(s). ML4E (talk) 20:17, March 20, 2013 (UTC) Adding onto this 3 years later: when I read T2G, the DoP's daughter thing made me think of Patty Hearst rather than Lindbergh.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 18:38, March 6, 2016 (UTC) :Not really. Hearst was an adult and joined the SLA. Now, if the Duke's infant had been an adult and joined the Sons of Liberty, then you would have something. ML4E (talk) 18:51, March 6, 2016 (UTC) ::Since we aren't told anything about age or outcome, it could go either way.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:10, March 6, 2016 (UTC) Lindbergh Jr. Re "Before the Beginning", the story refers to the Lindbergh baby rather than Charles Lindbergh, so should the latter's BtB section be deleted?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 18:41, March 6, 2016 (UTC) :Does it or does it refer to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping? The second is more tied to the father rather than the child. If fact, I thought the article on Lindbergh Jr. had a very weak justification at the time of creation. ML4E (talk) 18:51, March 6, 2016 (UTC) ::It just lists a bunch of time-viewer video titles, and one of them is "The Lindbergh baby."JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:08, March 6, 2016 (UTC) ::The actual reference is to "the Lindbergh baby", so arguably the Lindbergh Sr. section could go away. TR (talk) 19:04, March 6, 2016 (UTC) :::Just because it says "Lindbergh Baby" rather than "Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping," I can't imagine we're meant to assume it contains footage of anything other than said kidnapping. Who wants to watch someone else's baby, even a famous one, squirm around in his crib? :::There's also this to consider: We have two other sections in this article, so it wouldn't be going anywhere even if we did remove the section. Generally we're more tolerant of sections that make incidental reference to a historical figure if that figure already exists on this Wiki through some other means. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:53, March 6, 2016 (UTC) ::::That's true as well. Since it causes no harm to leave it, we might as well. TR (talk) 20:59, March 6, 2016 (UTC) Delete Sadly, none of HT's references to Lindbergh are relevant to their story's plots, no do they differ from OTL.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:45, July 25, 2016 (UTC) bump JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:38, August 21, 2016 (UTC) :In a previous discussion, I believe it was decided that the Time-viewer recordings justified keeping the sub-sections regardless of how slight they seem. The other two sub-sections should be moved along with Talk:Charles Lindbergh Jr.'s Joe Steele sub-section. ML4E (talk) 21:59, August 22, 2016 (UTC) ::After all these years, there is a new wrinkle in the BtB matter, Talk:Evelyn Nesbit. BtB doesn't actually mention Lindbergh, just his dead son.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 07:12, May 14, 2019 (UTC) :::Since you have the book in front of you, please give an exact quote. I suspect it says Lindbergh kidnapping so can cover the reaction of the parents as well as the kidnapping and death of the child. ML4E (talk) 20:41, May 14, 2019 (UTC) ::::Literally it only says "The Lindbergh baby."Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 04:01, May 15, 2019 (UTC) :::As discussed in the previous section, the significance is whose baby. I contended then and do now that the relevant article is the father's. A baby is a baby, it is only a famous person's baby being kidnapped that is significant. I was willing to leave the baby article but am unwilling to delete the father's sub-section. :::In contrast with "Evelyn Nesbit", she, her husband and her lover are not famous today, although it appears to be an infamous case in its day. Therefore, articles for named people are warranted and cover all needed information and those who are not, are not. Using the same logic "the Lindbergh baby" is an interpenetration of who this refers to consistent with my interpretation of named character. ML4E (talk) 15:22, May 16, 2019 (UTC)